These rules are stipulated in accordance with the provisions of Article 21, Paragraph 4 and Article 52 of the Labor Incident Act (hereinafter referred to as this Act).

The labor cases as mentioned in these rules are stipulated in accordance with the provisions of Article 2, Paragraph 1 of this Act.
The term "civil cases" in this Act and in these rules refers to civil cases other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

The following cases shall be handled by the Labor Professional Courts (hereinafter referred to as Labor Courts):
1. Matters concerning mediation, litigation, provisional remedies in labor cases, and other matters associated with these cases;
2. Cases filed for decision and approval under the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes, and cases that apply for compulsory execution pertinent to the provisions of Article 59 Paragraph 1 of the same Act;
3. Cases for agreement approval under the Act for Worker Protection of Mass Redundancy;
4. Other matters stipulated by law, or as designated by the Judicial Yuan, to be handled by the labor courts.

If all or part of a labor case involves intellectual property rights, it may be handled by a labor court.
When the labor court hears the case, as described in the preceding paragraph, the part of the case that involves the trial and compulsory execution of intellectual property rights shall be governed in accordance with the provisions of this Act and these Adjudication Rules. Where matters are not stipulated in this Act and these Adjudication Rules, the provisions of Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act and Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Rules shall apply.
When the labor court hears the case, as described in the first paragraph, the provisions of Article 6, Article 7, Article 19, Article 21, Paragraph 2 and Article 22 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act do not apply.
When the intellectual property court hears the case as described in the first paragraph, the provisions of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act and Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Rules shall apply. Where matters are not stipulated in the provisions of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act and Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Rules, the provisions of this Act and these Rules shall apply. However, the provisions of Article 4 Paragraph 1 and Chapter 2 of this Act do not apply.

If the claim of a civil case is related to a claim of a labor case or its attack and defense methods; the information from the factual evidence can be shared, and the jurisdiction is not exclusive to other courts, the civil case may be combined with the said labor case in a lawsuit, or added to a pending labor litigation, or interposed as a counterclaim, to be adjudicated by a labor court.

When a civil case is pending in a litigation, the case parties may not add a labor action or interpose a labor counterclaim to the case.

If all or part of a labor case involves intellectual property rights and the employer initiates a lawsuit with an intellectual property court, the worker may, pursuant to the provisions of Article 6, Paragraph 2 and second half of Article 7, Paragraph 1 of this Act, petition for the said case to be transferred to a general court, of the worker's choice, with jurisdiction to be adjudicated by the labor division of such court. If the employer initiates a lawsuit with a general court, the worker may petition for the said case to be transferred to an intellectual property court.
In cases where the worker initiates an action or petitions for a mediation, and the employer objects to the agreed jurisdiction, where the court finds the parties' agreement concerning jurisdiction to be fair, considering the circumstances, the court may rule to transfer the case to the court of first instance, where the parties have agreed. However, this does not apply to cases where employers do not contest that the court lacks the jurisdiction and have made substantive arguments regarding the case.
Workers who apply for case transfer, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6, Paragraph 2, the second half of Article 7, Paragraph 1 and Article 7, Paragraph 2 of this Act, should indicate their choice of court. In the event that this is not indicated, or the choice of court is without jurisdiction according to the law, the presiding judge shall immediately order a correction within a set period of time. If such a correction is not made within the time limit, the Court shall rule to reject the action.

If a worker, pursuant to the provisions of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of this Act, attends the proceedings with an assistant on the assigned court date, the worker should explain that the assistant meets the qualifications as stipulated in the said provisions. If the said explanation is not made, then permission from the presiding judge, or the commissioned judge, should be obtained.
The labor union, as stipulated in Article 9, Paragraph 1 of this Act, is not limited to the labor union to which the worker belongs.

If any one of the following circumstances applies to the assistant, as mentioned in Article 9, Paragraph 1 of this Act, the presiding judge or the commissioned judge may, during the proceeding, rule to prohibit the said person from serving as an assistant:
1. The labor union, incorporated foundation, or assistant acts in solicitation of lawsuits or champerty.
2. The labor union, incorporated foundation, or assistant demands remuneration, consideration, transfer of rights, or other benefits from workers.
3. The assistant does not follow the instructions of the presiding judge or the commissioned judge, or acts in a manner that hinders the proceedings.
4. The assistant is not suitable for litigation or has committed other acts against the interests of the workers.
The preceding ruling prohibiting a person from acting as an assistant, is not appealable.

Under any of the following circumstances, the presiding judge or commissioned judge may, pursuant to the provisions of Article 10 of this Act, rule to revoke the party's permission to appoint an agent ad litem, as defined in the same Article.
1. There is a conflict of interest between a private employment service agency or an agent ad litem, and the appointer;
2. The agent ad litem does not follow the in-court instructions of the presiding judge or the commissioned judge, or acts in a manner that hinders the proceedings;
3. The private employment service agency or an agent ad litem has engaged in inappropriate behavior related to the litigation or behavior detrimental to the interests of the appointer.
The ruling to revoke the permission, as described in the preceding paragraph, shall be served on the appointer, who shall also be informed of the availability of legal aid.
The ruling to revoke the permission, as described in the first paragraph, is not appealable.

For actions initiated by the labor union pursuant to Article 44-1 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure and Article 42 of this Act, their temporarily waived judgment fee is determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 Paragraph 1 of this Act, and the provisions of Article 12 Paragraph 1 of this Act shall not apply.
If several subjects are claimed in one lawsuit, the portions of said lawsuit that are not listed under the provisions of Article 11 through Article 13 of this Act, a judgment fee shall be levied in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure.

If workers claim that they meet the criteria of the Social Relief Act concerning a low-income or middle-low income household, as stipulated in Article 14, Paragraph 1 of this Act, or claim that they meet the requirements of a family-in-hardship, as stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Act of Assistance for Family in Hardship, and petition for Litigation Aid, explanations should be stated in such a petition.
If workers or labor unions lose a lawsuit, and circumstances as stipulated in Article 81 and Article 82 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure exist, the court may order the prevailing employer to bear all or part of the litigation costs.